I do. It is not endings but the possibility to get the games I play analyzed by our teachers. Focusing on the mistakes I make and I am not able to find when I analyze my own games and how to avoid them. What do you think? Would you pay for getting your games analyzed? And if you would, how much would you pay for game?

I personally wouldn't be interested in have my games analyzed, I'm happy using computers and following my own curiosity. However, if I were really hungry to reach a professional level I would be looking for a good coach.

Still, it would be nice if the instructors would join in the discussions here or elseware from time to time.

I think game analysis would be a bit much to ask for from ICS, imagine if there were 50,000 people in ICS all wanting a game professionally analysed per week. That is a huge burden for them. However, I would certainly make use of it -- many times after doing engine analysis, I can see that I should have played A instead of B, the engine prefers it with a number. But the engine can never explain WHY. I play both lines through and see two different positions, the engine rates one better than the other, but I still have no idea why. If one wins material then it's easy, but when it is positional that it becomes quite impossible to understand from an engine why A was better than B. This is another huge reason why I am here.

Not all of us have access to a good coach either. I have tried a few and they are either impossible to understand, unmotivated, too expensive or not strong enough.

It would be VERY good if the ICS crew would be involved in this forum. I was under the impression they would be.

__________________________________________Content will be assimilated.Resistance is futile.----

Blue Devil Knight wrote:The danger of studying positional chess at the expense of tactics is that you will spend a half hour thinking about where a Knight belongs, and then proceed to put it on a beautiful square where it is en prise.

BorgQueen wrote: I play both lines through and see two different positions, the engine rates one better than the other, but I still have no idea why. If one wins material then it's easy, but when it is positional that it becomes quite impossible to understand from an engine why A was better than B.

Even the GMs disagree and different engines give different answers. If you can explain your own answers and you're withing a couple of tenths for engine evaluations you're probably doing pretty good!

Perhaps, but when those couple of tenths start accumulating it still equals a loss! Or a dropped win.

__________________________________________Content will be assimilated.Resistance is futile.----

Blue Devil Knight wrote:The danger of studying positional chess at the expense of tactics is that you will spend a half hour thinking about where a Knight belongs, and then proceed to put it on a beautiful square where it is en prise.

I just started the course so I cant say I miss something but one thing I do not see in the program is actual calculation advice. I was wondering if there will be theory/training on this subject like Kotov/Beim?

I just started the course so I cant say I miss something but one thing I do not see in the program is actual calculation advice. I was wondering if there will be theory/training on this subject like Kotov/Beim?

I'm not sure what you are refering to. If you mean Kotov's book "Think Like a Grandmaster" and his tree of calculations, from what I've read it's been largly discredited. Humans just don't think that way. The course does provide a structured way to approach calculations for humans in month three.

If you are interested in how humans of various rating levels do calculation I'd recommend a look at Dan Heisman's "The Improving Chess Thinker".

I have read a lot of Heismans articles on the subject at chesscafe http://home.comcast.net/~danheisman/Articles/Novice_Nook_Links.htm#subjectorder but will not start buying new books if the course will provide material to work with.

I belive that most find Kotov dated but never the less he is the reference on the subject (like Steinitz, Nimzowitsch, etc on other subjects).

For anyone serious about getting better, really serious, I think having a coach to go over one's own games is really important. I would gladly pay for that as a supplement to this course if I had the money.

Things the course doesn't teach include endgame and heavy duty tactical training (other than visualization). It also can't force us to play slow games and go over them with someone better.

Anyone that has gotten really good at any sport has done so with the help of a coach. Chess is no exception, from what I've seen.

Yeah, but money is the problem... Coaches... good ones... are quite expensive.

__________________________________________Content will be assimilated.Resistance is futile.----

Blue Devil Knight wrote:The danger of studying positional chess at the expense of tactics is that you will spend a half hour thinking about where a Knight belongs, and then proceed to put it on a beautiful square where it is en prise.